Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    As the "stealer" of the Economics Society Idea, I thought I'd start this thread.

    First debate: "Is London's bid for the 2012 Olympics a good idea? What implications will it have for our economy?" Discuss!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ellie4)
    As the "stealer" of the Economics Society Idea, I thought I'd start this thread.

    First debate: "Is London's bid for the 2012 Olympics a good idea? What implications will it have for our economy?" Discuss!
    yes its a good idea! - Multiplier effect--> creates jobs for many people, which gives them higher disposable income, which means that they will demand more products, and these in turn make companies more profitable, and they in turn may employ more workers due to an increase in demand of products...etc bad things probably includes terrorism and a lower budget surplus/higher budget deficit because of increase of govt spending in funding this event, when the money couldve been spent on nhs...etc
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    But what about the fact that past venues have only just struggled to break even, and some have made losses?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ellie4)
    But what about the fact that past venues have only just struggled to break even, and some have made losses?
    its not about just the venu its about the whole area
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ellie4)
    But what about the fact that past venues have only just struggled to break even, and some have made losses?
    Making a loss is an acceptable cost of staging the Olympics. It is a fantastic event to have in your country - just think how many people paid huge amount to get to Sydney to watch it. In my view, given the government spent £700m on the Dome, spending up the £1B Olympics is reasonable.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    "Though financial disasters like the Montreal Games are now rare, few Olympics manage to turn a profit. The exceptions, like Los Angeles in 1984, do so by not building much new stuff. London, by contrast, is planning a 500-acre Olympic park, complete with athletes' village, indoor arenas and swimming pool, in the lower Lea Valley, an unloved bit of east London."

    There's certainly the potential for London to end up in the red.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    Making a loss is an acceptable cost of staging the Olympics. It is a fantastic event to have in your country - just think how many people paid huge amount to get to Sydney to watch it. In my view, given the government spent £700m on the Dome, spending up the £1B Olympics is reasonable.
    agreed - in both the long term and short term, the overall benefit really covers the cost.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Could it not be argued that though the Olympics will probably do all Wolf said, it will do it in the South East were economics investment is least needed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ellie4)
    As the "stealer" of the Economics Society Idea, I thought I'd start this thread.

    First debate: "Is London's bid for the 2012 Olympics a good idea? What implications will it have for our economy?" Discuss!
    What happened to Manchester bidding for the games?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    What happened to Manchester bidding for the games?
    The Olympic Committee would only consider a London-based British bid.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    The Olympic Committee would only consider a London-based British bid.
    Really? Because Manchester had the Commonwealth games?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ellie4)
    Really? Because Manchester had the Commonwealth games?
    More that they just wanted London's already high-profile status. No one really knows, it's a bit stupid really.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    More that they just wanted London's already high-profile status. No one really knows, it's a bit stupid really.
    One of the major concerns for the Olympics these days is security, and travel about the city. I don't think London would be a viable spot for the Olypmics to be honest. It is meant to be rather hard to navigate if it is your first time there, too large for effective policing etc. Not a good move to be honest. Especially if you look at the trend of the past few. 2000 Sydney 3mil, 1996 Atlanta serene area, 1992 Barcelona cultural, 1988 Seoul rebuilding Korea
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I does highlight how London-centric the country is becoming. Man did the commonwealth very sucessfully so there is an argument that it should go to another city.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The reason Manchester was not allowed to bid is the organisation (nothing to do with the government or London) said that if a bid came from anywhere but London they would be wasting their time and it would fail. So the government then stopped Manchester making a bid. Also, Manchester has bidded in the past, for the 2000 olympics, and we failed. Whilst Manchester has changed considerably since then, I can see the argument that we're not going to win a competition which includes the likes of NYC, (Paris?) etc. Heh, at this shop outside my college there's a sticker saying "Manchester for 2000 olympics!" or similar, it must be over a decade old.

    What I did think was unfair was refusing Manchester anything to do with it. Whoever said that London does not need that kind of investment when you look at what other cities need is right. I think a bid for London, with Manchester hosting say watersports, or some event or other would have been a better bid to make on behalf of the entire country. I certainly don't want to be paying for investment which only benefits the South East! Regardless of the multiplier effect, the North would probably never see those benefits.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There is the danger of a short-term loss on the Games but what the Games would leave behind are a whole load of sporting facilities, new housing, perhaps things like shopping complexes? It would hugely expand London's growth potential I would think. And London is already accountable for a huge proportion of UK GDP so a bit more surely couldn't hurt anyone in the country. There'd be more jobs such as police and security recruitment.

    I reckon the Dome area should be made focal to the Games.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XTinaA)
    There is the danger of a short-term loss on the Games but what the Games would leave behind are a whole load of sporting facilities, new housing, perhaps things like shopping complexes? It would hugely expand London's growth potential I would think. And London is already accountable for a huge proportion of UK GDP so a bit more surely couldn't hurt anyone in the country. There'd be more jobs such as police and security recruitment.

    I reckon the Dome area should be made focal to the Games.
    Again there is the problem of the venues being used once and then most of them being never being used to full capacity again.

    The Dome is too small to be anything focal. Maybe a sideline view, but nothing major (maybe gynamestics) can happen inside
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Again there is the problem of the venues being used once and then most of them being never being used to full capacity again.

    The Dome is too small to be anything focal. Maybe a sideline view, but nothing major (maybe gynamestics) can happen inside
    Very true. And given the obesity problem I doubt the venues would be used very much afterwards by then.

    I heard there was plans to hold events like beach volleyball at the Dome and stuff. They might just throw gymnastics there. Considering the cold air can get in, I wouldn't mind seeing some "perky" female gymnasts there.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XTinaA)
    I wouldn't mind seeing some "perky" female gymnasts there.
    I think the combined might of 5000 hot blooded males panting like a pack of masterbating monkeys inside the Dome might warm it up sufficiently...I expect you will be among them
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    I think the combined might of 5000 hot blooded males panting like a pack of masterbating monkeys inside the Dome might warm it up sufficiently...I expect you will be among them
    There you go, we save on heating! Body heat is the new renewable heat source!

    (Futile attempt to return the subject matter to economics, and I'm not officially in the Society!)
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 31, 2004
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.